It's my understanding that Pathfinder underwent extensive playtesting before release, yes? I have to wonder if they even tried out the Paladin, because I have someone playing one in my campaign and whoever tweaked the paladin rules is *nuts*.

Let me explain. I've got 4 players in my group, a fighter, rogue, draconic sorcerer (going for dragon disc.) and a paladin. They just got to level 7, but I'll speak of the lower level adventures they've had thus far.

If the party encounters a group of neutral monsters, or mercenaries it's a nicely balanced party. No-one is too powerful or underpowered (nice job to the authors, seriously good balance here.)

However, when the Big Bad guy at the end is evil (as villains so often are), the paladin does his smite evil and effectively gains 5 or more levels. He has 20 CHA (started with an 18, +2 for human), so that's +5 to hit, +5 AC, (lets say he's level 6 in this example) +6 damage to hit with no chance of any DR stopping it. I could live with all that, but the fact it stays on the target until it's dead (or the paladin decides to go have a nap) is insane.

What was a nicely balanced adventure suddenly turns into "Paladin ruins it for everyone else by killing the climactic villain in 3 rounds FLAT". I go and put a CR 11 black dragon in, the party is all level 6. I'm pretty sure they can take it, but it'll probably be challenge.
Fighter gets a couple of hits in, but he's not terribly effective - he's tanking it and hoping for the best. Sorc gets some nice scorching rays in, though 1 gets deflected by the dragon's SR. Rogue tries a couple of tricks but ultimately decides to stay the hell out of the way.

Paladin does divine favour and makes his weapon +1, and then does smite evil - BOOM! Go get your shine box boy! +12 damage to every attack. He's using a greatsword so that's 2d6+22 damage altogether on every single hit, and god forbid he gets a critical hit. The others might as well go whoring and just throw the Paladin at every evil villain they encounter. And the real danger here is that to challenge the paladin, I have to put in a huge monster that would normally obliterate a ECL 6-7 party, so it renders everyone almost useless (at best) or fodder (at worst). DR that stymies other party members the paladin glides through. Every. Single. Time.

It's not the CHA bonuses that are ruining the balance, it's the massive damage bonus (combine it with the bonded weapon feature and spells and we're talking retarded levels of damage). I mean, it's not like there's a decent protection spell or ability against it. Protection from good. That's about it.

So here is my house rule: Smite evil works on 1 attack per use. The AC bonus lasts until the start of your next round, but otherwise Smite evil can only be used a number of times per day equal to half your paladin level (minimum 1). This may still be overpowered, but I'm going to try it out this friday night and see how it goes.

Having seen the effectiveness of the paladin, I've resolved to play one in every campaign where evildoers lurk (unless this house rule is used). Anyone who doesn't needs their head checked :P Just imagine if he gets a holy sword and gets all that SR as well...

Any other GM's having trouble with paladins mopping the floor with their carefully constructed campaigns?

Not in the RAW, but I would rule that Smite Evil only applied to innate DR not DR from spells, items or materials like Adamantine.

I like that too, stoneskin is technically not evil, and technically not the evil entity that is being smote :)

While I do understand this this is a game of heroic fantasy you realize that by throwing evil monsters at the Paladin, you're letting the Paladin do what he does best. Wipe evil off the face of the planet.

There is a simple solution to this. Stop giving him evil villains to fight. Sometimes the most vile evil, is the evil that's not evil at all. Sometimes the righteous might of law and good can become just as oppressive of a force as that of tyranny.

If you need a good fantasy example I suggest "The King Priest" from Dragonlance.

Even a neutral villain who is trying to balance the scales of good vs. evil would throw the paladin for a loop.

He's only righteous god, when he's fighting evil. But then again, that's his job. I'll admit, the Paladin in Pathfinder is the equivalent of a terminator programed to destroy all the evil in your campaign world. But then again, in 3.5 he really wasn't worth taking past level 5 or 6.

So while I do understand your plight that this beast is the destroyer of all things evil in your campaign, a part of me feels as though he's just doing his job. And seeing as how I come from as far back as 2nd edition (yeah raise your hand if you remember THAC0), I'm kinda glad to see the Paladin and the Ranger back with avengeance.

All I'm suggesting is rather than try to rein the Paladin in, try throwing him into situations where his divine wrath of god doesn't come into play so often, or its not the lynch pin to your adventure.

I played D&D basic back in the early 80's, so I outrank you :P (kidding!)

Seriously though, you're saying my solution is not to give him evil to fight? This includes monsters, by the way. If the world was that evil-free there wouldn't be paladins in the first place ;) hell, paladins this powerful would guarentee a theocratic government just like the Kingpriest's.

Here's my fantasy example: Drizzt fighting artemis. If Drizzt was a paladin the duel would have been over in 3 rounds :P

Having an evil nemesis is all part of the fun. Not saying I put in evil at every corner by the way. Far from it. But looking through the beastiary, it's pretty thin on non-evil monsters.

Let me just reiterate - a level 6 paladin took on and killed a level 11 black dragon without breaking a sweat, and with only a sorc that ended up dealing about 50 damage over 5 rounds. You cannot tell me that is game balance.

I still want the paladin to be the bane of evil. But the current amount of smiting allowed (i.e. until the target is dead) is crazy, so I'm reducing it's usage per day. He's still going to hit like a main battle tank firing on a puppy dog, just not all day long.

I played D&D basic back in the early 80's, so I outrank you :P (kidding!)

Seriously though, you're saying my solution is not to give him evil to fight? This includes monsters, by the way. If the world was that evil-free there wouldn't be paladins in the first place ;) hell, paladins this powerful would guarentee a theocratic government just like the Kingpriest's.

Here's my fantasy example: Drizzt fighting artemis. If Drizzt was a paladin the duel would have been over in 3 rounds :P

Let me just reiterate - a level 6 paladin took on and killed a level 11 black dragon without breaking a sweat, and with only a sorc that ended up dealing about 50 damage over 5 rounds. You cannot tell me that is game balance.

I still want the paladin to be the bane of evil. But the current amount of smiting allowed (i.e. until the target is dead) is crazy, so I'm reducing it's usage per day. He's still going to hit like a main battle tank firing on a puppy dog, just not all day long.

And the sorceror engaged the paladin in melee? Without lots and lots of physically powerful backup? Paladins are designed to destroy evil - if they can reach it. Dragons can fly and use magic, can they not?

And the sorceror engaged the paladin in melee? Without lots and lots of physically powerful backup? Paladins are designed to destroy evil - if they can reach it. Dragons can fly and use magic, can they not?

No the sorc was behind and to the left of the paladin, engaging the dragon. He was in the party (I did mention that if you go back and take a look). The 50ish damage was done to the dragon by the sorc.

The dragon has magic, and a breath weapon, that was easily saved against by the paladin. There was a fighter there as well, he did a little damage but had trouble hitting.

Black dragons are fond of water environments, they happened to be at an underground lake. No room for flying, didn't get time to escape either (was going to do it next round)

Ok let me put this to you, learned sirs: If the paladin and his stalwart companions only ever faced neutral enemies in battle, (or at least non-evil targets), would you consider the paladin to be weak? Is smite evil the entire focus of the character, or does he hold his own with the other classes of the same level?

I say that if the paladin is balanced when fighting neutrals, then removing smite evil altogether would mean he would have the same class balance fighting evil. Therefore, smite evil as it is currently written makes them overpowered, which is my argument. It gives the paladin 5+ levels (conservatively) in power.

Bottom line: If a paladin can take on neutrals just as effectively as any other class, then he can get by with only a few smite evil attacks per day when fighting evil targets.

Thing is, the Paladin ISN'T balanced against non-evil foes. If you put a Paladin and Fighter of equal level in a Party, vs Non-Evil foes the Fighter kicks a LOT more butt (weapon training, weapon specialization, etc etc etc), while the Paladin takes the lead vs evil foes.

Honestly the only hole I see in the Paladin's balance is his extra bonus vs some creature types. If you got rid of that it would fall perfectly into line. (Also, I have to ask... what do you guys think happens if the Paladin were to smite a non-evil outsider with the evil subtype? lol)

I played D&D basic back in the early 80's, so I outrank you :P (kidding!)

Seriously though, you're saying my solution is not to give him evil to fight? This includes monsters, by the way. If the world was that evil-free there wouldn't be paladins in the first place ;) hell, paladins this powerful would guarentee a theocratic government just like the Kingpriest's.

Here's my fantasy example: Drizzt fighting artemis. If Drizzt was a paladin the duel would have been over in 3 rounds :P

Having an evil nemesis is all part of the fun. Not saying I put in evil at every corner by the way. Far from it. But looking through the beastiary, it's pretty thin on non-evil monsters.

Let me just reiterate - a level 6 paladin took on and killed a level 11 black dragon without breaking a sweat, and with only a sorc that ended up dealing about 50 damage over 5 rounds. You cannot tell me that is game balance.

I still want the paladin to be the bane of evil. But the current amount of smiting allowed (i.e. until the target is dead) is crazy, so I'm reducing it's usage per day. He's still going to hit like a main battle tank firing on a puppy dog, just not all day long.

Never said don't give him evil to fight. But don't make every adventure based around some epic form of evil, because you know what he's gonna do.

All I'm saying is mix it up. Throw challenges his way that are not inherently evil, but can have bad consequences. Like I said, the neutral druid who has decided to balance the scales by eliminating that new local settlement that is throwing off the natural balance of his eco-system, isn't an evil villain, he's just operating according his moral code.

Which are, humans through the balance out the window when the moved in and began soiling this area with their settlement. They've over hunted, over harvested, or extended. He's tried peaceful negotiations, but the townsfolk view him as backwards and ignore him. So... he decides like a force of nature to simply remove said community if they will not listen to reason.

Neither side is evil in this equation.

But lets just say the party is forced into a physical confrontation with said Druid. Suddenly captain paladin isn't so full of righteous might anymore.

Not only does this force him to sit back and not be the damage dealing monster that he normally is, but it forces him as well as the group to learn how to deal with this non-evil, but still problematic challenge.

Long and the short
Gray areas that are neither good nor evil, right or wrong, ect, give the Paladin a major headache both mechanically and RP wise. He's built to fight the ultimate extremes of good vs. evil. When faced with questionable moral challenges, and socially gray dilemmas, it makes him have to put down the sword of righteousness and think.

And it also allows the other PCs to shine.

That's all I'm saying.

Every fight doesn't have to be good vs evil.

Sometimes the most challenging adventures are the ones where you're not sure if you're doing the right thing 100% of the time.

Thing is, the Paladin ISN'T balanced against non-evil foes. If you put a Paladin and Fighter of equal level in a Party, vs Non-Evil foes the Fighter kicks a LOT more butt (weapon training, weapon specialization, etc etc etc), while the Paladin takes the lead vs evil foes.

Honestly the only hole I see in the Paladin's balance is his extra bonus vs some creature types. If you got rid of that it would fall perfectly into line. (Also, I have to ask... what do you guys think happens if the Paladin were to smite a non-evil outsider with the evil subtype? lol)

Erm, tough call, I'd say that if the alignment of the (let's say) demon was chaotic neutral for some reason, it would not technically be evil, and therefore smite wouldn't work ;)

As for paladin vs. fighter - very good chance the fighter would win. Fighting is all fighters really do, so they should be the best at it. This also depends on the fighters equipment. If both classes had nonmagical equipment, the paladin still gets spells like divine favour, and bonded weapon (haste, anyone?) not to mention laying on hands as a swift action. :D Hmm, might have to set up a duel and see what happens.

Paladin should be able leading by example, buffing, healing allies, providing auras that give saving throw bonuses (+4 fear, vs enchant etc). Paladin still does get smite. And the way doing my house rules the level 7 paladin can still do it on 3 attacks per day (doesn't get used on a miss, so he can reuse). If this, somehow, turns my players' paladin into a scared little girl, unable to deal with the evil in the world, I may relent and increase the usages to level/day. We'll see :)

And evil minions with plastic surgery to look extra evil, and pumped up on steroids to look intimidating enough to need smiting... all the way until there are no Smite's left. And some anti-paladin style evil armoured dudes as bodyguards, with holy symbols of evil gods plastered all over their armour.

"I will smite these foul servants of *insert evil god*, for such have I sworn. You, on the other hand, you I can deal with using only my bare hands. And maybe this huge sword. And I'll probably keep my armour on."

Or... or.. imagine using your smite on an illusion. Hmmm - can an illusion fool Detect Evil? If not - why is there Detect Illusion? One for another thread :-)

It kind of seems like rewriting the whole adventure to soak up the paladins smites and ... it is. As long as he's smiting huge beasts the player's happy. Max out the hitpoints on two paladin-fodder beasts, and let the villain look shocked when he splats them. Meanwhile, the stuff you've invented for the other player's characters that only they can do... keeps them happy.

"It's lucky you kept those massive Rock Troll Hydras busy, Sir Paladin, otherwise I could never have gotten those traps disarmed/ performed the ritual to remove the unholy taint from the prison doors/ deciphered those runes safely."

I usually find that once I get over my shock that the players have broken my adventure, that they have no idea themselves what they just did. They assume it was supposed to go that way. They're also ripe for a plot twist to confirm that you're the boss and that they're often right to be suspicious.

"Hmmm - that dragon went down surprisingly easy. I mean, okay, your smite is awesome, but still...a dragon? Hey.. waitaminute... waddyamean the dragon melted into a pool of bad-smelling gunk and a small ruby?"

Thing is, the Paladin ISN'T balanced against non-evil foes. If you put a Paladin and Fighter of equal level in a Party, vs Non-Evil foes the Fighter kicks a LOT more butt (weapon training, weapon specialization, etc etc etc), while the Paladin takes the lead vs evil foes.

Honestly the only hole I see in the Paladin's balance is his extra bonus vs some creature types. If you got rid of that it would fall perfectly into line. (Also, I have to ask... what do you guys think happens if the Paladin were to smite a non-evil outsider with the evil subtype? lol)

For the love of Mishakal...

Please no good aligned half fiends at 2:30am in the morning.
(feels multi-verse imploding at this idea)

for simplicities sake, the smite goes off, he crushes the creature with the evil template, and then comes to the shocking realization that while he just smote something inherently evil, he has committed a truly grave sin by denying this evil an opportunity to repent.

Now go cry me a river of atonement while while you bury yourself in introspective Paladin, what-have-I-done angst.

I played D&D basic back in the early 80's, so I outrank you :P (kidding!)

Seriously though, you're saying my solution is not to give him evil to fight? This includes monsters, by the way. If the world was that evil-free there wouldn't be paladins in the first place ;) hell, paladins this powerful would guarentee a theocratic government just like the Kingpriest's.

Here's my fantasy example: Drizzt fighting artemis. If Drizzt was a paladin the duel would have been over in 3 rounds :P

Having an evil nemesis is all part of the fun. Not saying I put in evil at every corner by the way. Far from it. But looking through the beastiary, it's pretty thin on non-evil monsters.

Let me just reiterate - a level 6 paladin took on and killed a level 11 black dragon without breaking a sweat, and with only a sorc that ended up dealing about 50 damage over 5 rounds. You cannot tell me that is game balance.

I still want the paladin to be the bane of evil. But the current amount of smiting allowed (i.e. until the target is dead) is crazy, so I'm reducing it's usage per day. He's still going to hit like a main battle tank firing on a puppy dog, just not all day long.

Never said don't give him evil to fight. But don't make every adventure based around some epic form of evil, because you know what he's gonna do.

All I'm saying is mix it up. Throw challenges his way that are not inherently evil, but can have bad consequences. Like I said, the neutral druid who has decided to balance the scales by eliminating that new local settlement that is throwing off the natural balance of his eco-system, isn't an evil villain, he's just operating according his moral code.

Which are, humans through the balance out the window when the moved in and began soiling this area with their settlement. They've over hunted, over harvested, or extended. He's tried peaceful negotiations, but the townsfolk view him as backwards and ignore him. So... he decides like a force of nature to simply remove...

And I DID reply that not every encounter DID have evil. The first adventure I did for the team at level 1 was dealing with a mining team moving into tribal territory and having conflict. Grey zone and such, was very cool. To be clear, there was 1 evil fighter they fight (and utterly annihilated) at one point, and then this dragon, and the other bad guys have ben mostly regular folk.

And evil minions with plastic surgery to look extra evil, and pumped up on steroids to look intimidating enough to need smiting... all the way until there are no Smite's left. And some anti-paladin style evil armoured dudes as bodyguards, with holy symbols of evil gods plastered all over their armour.

"I will smite these foul servants of *insert evil god*, for such have I sworn. You, on the other hand, you I can deal with using only my bare hands. And maybe this huge sword. And I'll probably keep my armour on."

Or... or.. imagine using your smite on an illusion. Hmmm - can an illusion fool Detect Evil? If not - why is there Detect Illusion? One for another thread :-)

It kind of seems like rewriting the whole adventure to soak up the paladins smites and ... it is. As long as he's smiting huge beasts the player's happy. Max out the hitpoints on two paladin-fodder beasts, and let the villain look shocked when he splats them. Meanwhile, the stuff you've invented for the other player's characters that only they can do... keeps them happy.

"It's lucky you kept those massive Rock Troll Hydras busy, Sir Paladin, otherwise I could never have gotten those traps disarmed/ performed the ritual to remove the unholy taint from the prison doors/ deciphered those runes safely."

I usually find that once I get over my shock that the players have broken my adventure, that they have no idea themselves what they just did. They assume it was supposed to go that way. They're also ripe for a plot twist to confirm that you're the boss and that they're often right to be suspicious.

"Hmmm - that dragon went down surprisingly easy. I mean, okay, your smite is awesome, but still...a dragon? Hey.. waitaminute... waddyamean the dragon melted into a pool of bad-smelling gunk and a small ruby?"

"Loot!"

"No! Don't touch it! I detect evil on the ruby..."

---and you're off again :-)

LOL, you sir, are a wit! I love the smiting of illusions, that's a great idea. And yes I'm basically looking at either nerfing the paladin or putting two of every big bad guy in each adventure to soak up his smites. Pity is has to come to either one really.

My party breaks my advetures all the time, I've gotten to the point that I just make basic notes before beginning as I know I'll have to improvise ;)

I played D&D basic back in the early 80's, so I outrank you :P (kidding!)

Augh! You've just made me aware that I remember most of the solo adventure in the red book. Ghouls... rust monster... magic mouth... damn magic-user with charm person... why was I a fighter, damn it? Couldn't the sample character have been an elf? :(

Quote:

Let me just reiterate - a level 6 paladin took on and killed a level 11 black dragon without breaking a sweat, and with only a sorc that ended up dealing about 50 damage over 5 rounds. You cannot tell me that is game balance.

(...)
Black dragons are fond of water environments, they happened to be at an underground lake. No room for flying, didn't get time to escape either (was going to do it next round)

With a 60' swim speed and water breathing, I think I might have run that encounter a little differently.

Quote:

Ok let me put this to you, learned sirs: If the paladin and his stalwart companions only ever faced neutral enemies in battle, (or at least non-evil targets), would you consider the paladin to be weak? Is smite evil the entire focus of the character, or does he hold his own with the other classes of the same level?

Against non-evil foes, paladins are only half as effective as fighters. Look for the "Smite evil is EVIL" thread referenced above... there are charts and junk. :) Against evil foes who are not undead, outsiders or dragons, paladins are slightly better than fighters. Your example is one of the paladin's super-strengths. And I'm still not sure how the party managed to catch the dragon, unless that was a really small lake.

Yeah could someone link me to that 'smite evil is EVIL' thread or provide directions? I can't seem to find it.

Oh and the dragon *surprised* them, leaping up out of the water and dealing lots of damage to the rogue before he got out of the way and the paladin came to the fore. Was rather sure the dragon was going to beat them up before retreating - and indeed, everyone except the paladin had a hard time with it.

Oh, and I have another option for campaign balance - EVERYTHING they fight is evil, so he won't know which targets to use his precious smite evil on! muaahhaah! Of course this may result in every non-paladin in the party getting severely killed. I'll be sure to post here on the results :D

Oh and the dragon *surprised* them, leaping up out of the water and dealing lots of damage to the rogue before he got out of the way and the paladin came to the fore. Was rather sure the dragon was going to beat them up before retreating - and indeed, everyone except the paladin had a hard time with it.

Right, so: the dragon's mate was watching from the murky depths. She saw what a brutal badass the paladin was, and is now plotting sinister revenge... but she won't make the mistake of a frontal assault.

Oh and the dragon *surprised* them, leaping up out of the water and dealing lots of damage to the rogue before he got out of the way and the paladin came to the fore. Was rather sure the dragon was going to beat them up before retreating - and indeed, everyone except the paladin had a hard time with it.

Right, so: the dragon's mate was watching from the murky depths. She saw what a brutal badass the paladin was, and is now plotting sinister revenge... but she won't make the mistake of a frontal assault.

Thank you, Sir Plot Hook. :)

Or even better, it was only a Similicrum of the real, much more powerful black dragon that left it there to guard it's den and treasure hord, and was left with a scrying crystal to watch the whole thing.

When the vastly stronger dragon comes back and sees what all went on, he is going to be very unhappy with those pesky adventurers and the crunchy porkchop in shining armor.

Oh and the dragon *surprised* them, leaping up out of the water and dealing lots of damage to the rogue before he got out of the way and the paladin came to the fore. Was rather sure the dragon was going to beat them up before retreating - and indeed, everyone except the paladin had a hard time with it.

Right, so: the dragon's mate was watching from the murky depths. She saw what a brutal badass the paladin was, and is now plotting sinister revenge... but she won't make the mistake of a frontal assault.

Fascinating reading, and a massive thread. The general consensus seems to be that smite is a bit overpowered, so he's what I'm doing in my game - functions normally except it deals half paladin level as damage to regular evil, and dragons, outsiders, undead etc (i.e. super-mega evil!) does paladin level as damage. Basically halved. I think that'll work nicely, I'll give it a whirl on friday :)

And yes I'm basically looking at either nerfing the paladin or putting two of every big bad guy in each adventure to soak up his smites

No need man - the guy he seriously, absolutely, definitely needs a smite to beat is the BBE..X. Where X= bodyguard/ ugly brother/ separated siamese twin (the big half) of the BBEG. The party deals with the BBEG as only the wizard/ rogue/ cleric/ fighter can - the Paladin deals with huge, damage-resistant, very evil, zillions of hit-points party-trashing beast as only HE can. He can do his job without being nerfed too much. And it's only one smite a day, right?

Spoiler:

Or give it a Nilbog template ;-)
(I gave a few bad guys that a while ago - the cursed previous intruders in a temple. Dropped their hitpoints to about 20 from the 100+ they looked like they would have. Covered them in scars and brands, and let them heal from damage - and need healing to hurt them.)

CRITICAL OPENING SMITE! Hurrah!...Huh?...*gulp*
Paladin player OOC: What? It looks like it gained 80 hitpoints?
Paladin: "WIZARD! What the heck is this?" *dodge, parry, backs off slowly*
Wizard: "Bla bla bla curse/ blessing of Xagygyrag, tortured to near death and subjected to a ritual. You must heal them to hurt them - but luckily they are already weakened and near death - just on the wrong side of it."
Paladin: "But I just hit it really, really, hard. And it got better."
Wizard: "Ah. Hmmmm. How's your Lay on Hands these days?"

Thing is, the Paladin ISN'T balanced against non-evil foes. If you put a Paladin and Fighter of equal level in a Party, vs Non-Evil foes the Fighter kicks a LOT more butt (weapon training, weapon specialization, etc etc etc), while the Paladin takes the lead vs evil foes.

Honestly the only hole I see in the Paladin's balance is his extra bonus vs some creature types. If you got rid of that it would fall perfectly into line. (Also, I have to ask... what do you guys think happens if the Paladin were to smite a non-evil outsider with the evil subtype? lol)

If the paladin only brought dps to the table you would have a point. But he is also argueably the second best healer in the game past the mid-early levels.

And yes I'm basically looking at either nerfing the paladin or putting two of every big bad guy in each adventure to soak up his smites

No need man - the guy he seriously, absolutely, definitely needs a smite to beat is the BBE..X. Where X= bodyguard/ ugly brother/ separated siamese twin (the big half) of the BBEG. The party deals with the BBEG as only the wizard/ rogue/ cleric/ fighter can - the Paladin deals with huge, damage-resistant, very evil, zillions of hit-points party-trashing beast as only HE can. He can do his job without being nerfed too much. And it's only one smite a day, right?

** spoiler omitted **

Nope, he get's 2, as he's 7th level now. Pretty sure halving the smite damage is going to balance it out to my satisfaction, and the guy playing the paladin is fine with it too.

If the paladin only brought dps to the table you would have a point. But he is also argueably the second best healer in the game past the mid-early levels.

He is very good at two of the weakest things in the game.

Lets be fair MIB, he's very good at the DPS part to the point it ACTUALLY MATTERS Vs his EXTRA evil target.

(Tongue out of cheek, I honestly find the basic smite satisfactory, but you need the super smite + pounce or a friendly teleport to get the same kind of combat ending mojo spellcasters bring out of it. That or a single-strike multiplier charger. Wait... we can actually do that core... kind of... Paladin+Lance+spirited charge+supersmite=pain)

If the paladin only brought dps to the table you would have a point. But he is also argueably the second best healer in the game past the mid-early levels.

He is very good at two of the weakest things in the game.

But he's clearly stronger then the fighter in all situations because of it. The fighter can out DPS him in some situations, but that's all he really brings. Of the melee classes there really isn't a comparision they are simply stronger then all other melee and to me it seems pretty hands down.

It's my understanding that Pathfinder underwent extensive playtesting before release, yes? I have to wonder if they even tried out the Fighter, because I have someone playing one in my campaign and whoever tweaked the fighter rules is *nuts*.

Let me explain. I've got 4 players in my group, a paladin, rogue, draconic sorcerer (going for dragon disc.) and a fighter. They just got to level 7, but I'll speak of the lower level adventures they've had thus far.

When it's time for the Big Bad guy at the end, the fighter uses his two-handed weapon and is effectively level 12 or more! He has 20 STR (started with an 18, +2 for human), so that's +5 to hit, +7 damage. I could live with all that, but the fact that he can do it all day is insane.

What was a nicely balanced adventure suddenly turns into "Fighter ruins it for everyone else by killing the climactic villain in 3 rounds FLAT". I go and put a CR 11 black dragon in, the party is all level 6. I'm pretty sure they can take it, but it'll probably be challenge.

-----

When you have a 20 charisma, you are making a serious sacrifice to make that happen. Usually, it's going to be closer to 16 (or less) at that level, unless the paladin sacrificed str (or worse, con) to be able to up his charisma.

And, as it happens, most other melee classes add +3-ish damage all day, on every attack, at that level. Fighters are getting +1 to hit and +3 damage all day from Weapon Spec/Weapon Training, Barbs are getting +2 to hit and +3 damage all day from rage, etc. Giving the pally +3 to hit and +3 damage on one foe, twice a day, isn't unbalancing your game, nor is giving the pally +5 to hit/damage if he's sacrificing a 2-4 points of str to do it.

In my game, when the paladin uses smite evil, he gets barely equal damage output as the fighter does, even with the DR affecting the fighter's damage. But my fighter player is a powerplayer and my paladin player just made a nice allround rp paladin...

only thing is paladin has more ac and can heal himself as free action, thats nice...

I think paladin is ok for what he is...smite evil is a good ability (very good i admit), finally

I've noticed a lot of people recommending you use more neutral bad guys and less evil bad guys.

I disagree. A paladin does not get infinite smites per day.

Let's look at your 6th level Paladin example. He'll have Smite Evil 2/day (suppose he took Extra Smite from Complete Divine for another 2 per day), I'm counting a maximum of 4 smites.

If you throw say 6 evil creatures at him, he'll get to shine 4 times (YAY PALLY), but there will be two times Pally will have to rely on his natural combat prowess (which when compared to a fighter who can use his feats ALL DAY LONG) per day.

Now that isn't even ENCOUNTERS, just creatures. I'm counting about 40 creature types that fit into the CR 3-5 range (not including evil races that can be given class levels, or other creatures that have alignments of any).

Ultimately there's a lot of options for evil creatures in the world, and the paladin will have to choose his smite targets carefully. If he chooses to reserve his smite for someone he KNOWS is evil, more power to him! It'd be like a Wizard saving his highest level spells for the last fight, or the Barbarian saving all his rage up. Sure those earlier fights were tougher, but now at the end the PCs can really let loose.

Don't hold back with your villains either, they've probably been saving something special for those meddlin' kids and their little animal companions too. Have them summon a wall of minions, or activate a death-trap.

The paladin is the best at what he does, and what he does is smite evil. Don't be hatin' be embracin', give him so much evil he won't know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to charge right in, know when to run.

Seem to recall there being a Trait in the Council of Thieves AP or teh Cheliax book that basically muddles "evil". Basically it makes it 50-50 as to whether or not Detect Evil, Know Alignment or any spell/power based on alignment will work on the character or not.

Would be great for an NPC who is evil but thinks of himself as the good guy or even just doing what is necessary.

Mostly since the release of live I have seen only high level play, high level defined by me as level 12 to level 17, and the paladin busts out some serious damage when it really matters. He does so blowing through DR and high ACs because that's what his smite ability does for him. Even the casters have to overcome decent saves and SR at that level, but him he simply plows through it. Now he can't move well without pots or help but still when he gets there it's all over but the crying. His primary stats are Str and Cha, he can get away with less con because he can heal so well and his saves are so dang good.

The fighter's mobility is to me his greatest strength over the paladin, and still it's not really great enough to deal with foes at these levels, because they will be flying, out of reach, or something so plain running aint closing the gap easily. At lower levels it meant a good deal more then it does now.

One point: If the Pally is blowing through DC and dealing huge damage, wouldn't the BBEG either retreat or call whetever remains of his minions to distract/grapple/trip the Pally while the BBEG himself goes to squash that meddling Sorc?

Declaring smite makes him a target in more ways then one. Declare that smite and watch 2 Glaberezu rush to defend their friend while he backs off and nukes the fighter. Then, there is always just neutralizing the Pally. I would have had the BlDragon grapple the Pally (which I'm positive he could have done) and breathe again on the party. The Pally gets in a round of awesomeness, followed by a round of beating the Dragon CMD, followed by another round of awesomeness, and another round of CMD, etc. Ann the while, the Dragon is forced to ignore other threats, allowing them to do whatever thing they want.

In our current game, if we can bring the Pally up against the BBEG, we all coordinate to ensure he gets in mano e mano, which means tangling up the other minions, firing from range, and giving an assist when a combat maneuver delays his advent (like being disarmed: the monk totally takes the AoO to get him his sword back!).

In that way, it's just like protecting the caster so he can get off that hypnotic pattern spell. Spells do that, and come from squishy, tasty, low HP sources.

It's my understanding that Pathfinder underwent extensive playtesting before release, yes? I have to wonder if they even tried out the Fighter, because I have someone playing one in my campaign and whoever tweaked the fighter rules is *nuts*.

Let me explain. I've got 4 players in my group, a paladin, rogue, draconic sorcerer (going for dragon disc.) and a fighter. They just got to level 7, but I'll speak of the lower level adventures they've had thus far.

When it's time for the Big Bad guy at the end, the fighter uses his two-handed weapon and is effectively level 12 or more! He has 20 STR (started with an 18, +2 for human), so that's +5 to hit, +7 damage. I could live with all that, but the fact that he can do it all day is insane.

What was a nicely balanced adventure suddenly turns into "Fighter ruins it for everyone else by killing the climactic villain in 3 rounds FLAT". I go and put a CR 11 black dragon in, the party is all level 6. I'm pretty sure they can take it, but it'll probably be challenge.

-----

When you have a 20 charisma, you are making a serious sacrifice to make that happen. Usually, it's going to be closer to 16 (or less) at that level, unless the paladin sacrificed str (or worse, con) to be able to up his charisma.

And, as it happens, most other melee classes add +3-ish damage all day, on every attack, at that level. Fighters are getting +1 to hit and +3 damage all day from Weapon Spec/Weapon Training, Barbs are getting +2 to hit and +3 damage all day from rage, etc. Giving the pally +3 to hit and +3 damage on one foe, twice a day, isn't unbalancing your game, nor is giving the pally +5 to hit/damage if he's sacrificing a 2-4 points of str to do it.

It's not the charisma that was the problem, it was the sheer amount of damage that was being put out. If only it was +3 to hit and damage, but it's +7 damage. I don't care about the to-hit with no chance of DR. It was nuts. I have remedied this in my house rules to the satisfaction of all involved :)

I've noticed a lot of people recommending you use more neutral bad guys and less evil bad guys.

I disagree. A paladin does not get infinite smites per day.

Don't hold back with your villains either, they've probably been saving something special for those meddlin' kids and their little animal companions too. Have them summon a wall of minions, or activate a death-trap.

The paladin is the best at what he does, and what he does is smite evil. Don't be hatin' be embracin', give him so much evil he won't know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to charge right in, know when to run.

As I mentioned, the problem is that challenging the paladin renders the rest of the party hapless sidekicks, or comedy relief. I could see it in their eyes last session: "Oh, guess we'll just sit back and let him wail on this dragon. Think I can balance my chequebook while he's at it."

Used to be a team effort to take on big bad evil guys, now I have to put in something special to keep him occupied while the rest of the party do the main fight? Balderdash! I have nerfed him slightly, and all is well. He'll still be a force of justice, just not so much that everyone else can go home for tea and crumpets. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, I do so love balancing game systems :)

Savant1974, use anti-paladins against your party and the paladin just may find that he is attracting to much attention and now has a price on his head by a number of orders.

pay real attantion to his actions, he could simply lose his smite good ability do to some small discresion he may have done to affend his diety. or simply his diety thinks he relies on his ability to much and takes it away until he learns to only use it when its really needed.

i also think smite evil and for anti paladins, smite good should be changed to smite "greater evil/good"
lets say for example, a dragon evil it may be, just doesnt fit the dieties idea of being evil enough to grant the smitting ability but against a powerful lich who is extreemly evil the diety grants the ability.
this way you as the GM now has better control of when and when not to allow your paladin to use his ability and keep a more balanced feel for the rest of your party.

i just thought of something else for ya.
on unholy ground (done with a simple spell) his dieties influance either has less or no influance and his abilities are weakened or surpressed.

as a GM you should come up with all sorts of ideas that should generate the outcome that you desire and could make any PC weakened or inert.
for spell casters, theirs anti magic fields, you could create an anti ability field if you so desired, your the GM remember. YOU run the game, NOT your PC's.

I have always said this, but people seem to not be able to process it. A big climactic battle with a single enemy, does not, and will never work in DnD. Either A the enemy is overwhelmed by the greater number of opponents in the party, or B is strong enough to fend off being outnumbered but is thus too great a threat to a single party member (making it too easy to kill a single party member quickly). Paladins rock if you put ONE big bad evil guy in front of them, especially if that happens to be undead, evil outsider or an evil dragon. But you as the DM should NEVER EVER (seriously dont do this) put a single opponent against the party in a fight you want to be hard.

If you put multiple enemies in a fight, even if they are all evil, the paladin is not as powerful. In fact, if its not obvious who the most threatening enemy is they are likely to 'waste' a smite on someone who goes down quickly. Its also often a good idea to make it a little more ambiguous as to whether the enemy is evil, if the paladin has to spend a round of combat figuring out if the enemy is actually evil that is one more round of the combat, and evens out the participation of the whole party.

In addition, taking down the big bad evil is the paladins thing. Thats what they are for. What part of smite followed by evil is ambiguous? The OP put the paladin in the situation they are best at, and wonders why he was better then everyone else? Thats how this works, different classes are good at different things. I've never heard people say the rogue is overpowered because he totally overshadows everyone when he takes out trap based encounters. I've never heard people say the bard was overpowered in social situations. Why? These are their accepted area of expertise. Paladins expertise is putting the hurt on single big bads.

If there had been instead of a single dragon, a mated pair of a slightly lower CR, guess what? Paladin isnt as powerful. If there had also been some minions to get in his way, also, not as powerful. Put a few fights in there before the party takes on the big bad (this should always happen) and the paladin is less likely to have any smites left. The paladins dont need nerfing, DM's need to adapt a little to a character class actually doing what it was always supposed to do. After all, against neutral enemies, the paladin is a glorified warrior (offensively), and smite is very limited against multiple oppenents. The class is not overpowered.

The 3.p Paladin is one someone might play vs the 3.5 Paladin was one you only played for RP reasons.

Any moderately reasonable Bard is going to grant +5 atk/+4 dmg around the level they get 3rd level spells to everyone in the party. Far and away more powerful than the Paladin's self only bonus (until much later.) Would this make you believe the Bard is more powerful than the Paladin? If we use your criteria to judge, you must conclude the Bard is better.

In addition, taking down the big bad evil is the paladins thing. Thats what they are for. What part of smite followed by evil is ambiguous? The OP put the paladin in the situation they are best at, and wonders why he was better then everyone else? Thats how this works, different classes are good at different things. I've never heard people say the rogue is overpowered because he totally overshadows everyone when he takes out trap based encounters. I've never heard people say the bard was overpowered in social situations. Why? These are their accepted area of expertise. Paladins expertise is putting the hurt on single big bads.

Black dragons are fond of water environments, they happened to be at an underground lake. No room for flying, didn't get time to escape either (was going to do it next round)

then the black dragon was seriously in disadvantage. a real clever dragon would have avoided a combat in such a position. so either the dragon was not clever or it was surprised and thus it was no wonder that he died.

Maybe you repeat this encounter in an environment where the dragon has his standard natural advantages: sneaking, intelligent tactics, flying and blasting from above. I think the combat will end differently.

Did you use minis and battlemat for this? or just description?

IMO the outcome of a combat should not only defined by the stats of its participants. Its also defined by terrain, recon circumstances like surprise, morale and intelligence of the combatants . At least this is the way my group plays it.

The black dragon can breath water... he should have dove into the lake and then used his breath weapon and spells/spell like abilities on the party. It states that a black dragon can use it's breath weapon and spells/spell like abilities freely while submerged. Now the paladin either has to strip out of his armor and make swim checks to try to fight while under water( all of which are exceedingly unlikely ) or watch from the shore line. I suppose he could wade in with his armor on, but that would be instant drowning...

As I mentioned, the problem is that challenging the paladin renders the rest of the party hapless sidekicks, or comedy relief. I could see it in their eyes last session: "Oh, guess we'll just sit back and let him wail on this dragon. Think I can balance my chequebook while he's at it."

Used to be a team effort to take on big bad evil guys, now I have to put in something special to keep him occupied while the rest of the party do the main fight? Balderdash! I have nerfed him slightly, and all is well. He'll still be a force of justice, just not so much that everyone else can go home for tea and crumpets. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, I do so love balancing game systems :)